David Zerafa. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli

The man charged with murdering Gozitan lawyer Michael Grech nine years ago was at home on the day of the murder and did not leave the place until at least 3am the following morning, his brothers testified this afternoon.

David Zerafa, 39, of Nadur, is pleading not guilty to murdering Dr Grech, 46, outside his garage in Marsalforn in May 2004.

Dr Grech had been shot in the neck and his cranium was smashed in with a baseball bat. He died from a blow to his head which caused massive fractures to his skull.

Mr Zerafa’s brother Emmanuel testified that he saw his brother go to his room at around 8.45pm on the night of the murder.

His brother, he said, did not leave the room. He said he woke up at 3am as he had to go fishing at 6am but decided not to go.

At 3am, he said, the door was locked from the inside and with this lock no one could enter the residence, not even with a key.

Mr Zerafa said he had told the inspector that his brother had been home.

Maurizio Cordina, from the Attorney General’s Office, pointed out that the second time the accused spoke to the police he had said he was in Malta that night.

His brother replied: "no, I swear he was in Gozo".

His other brother Geoffrey also said that his brother David was home all night. He said he went sleep at around 10.30pm and from his room downstairs he could see who left and entered the house.

He said that David was home at around 9pm and he did not leave.

This morning, jurors were addressed by the accused's lawyer, Malcolm Mifsud. He said that several mistakes were committed by the police in the investigation.

The police, he said, had held a number of people who could have been involved but no tests were carried out for gunshot residue or to assess the accused, even though it was clear the victim had been shot at.

Moreover, no finger prints from the victim’s skin were retrieved and no tests were carried out on blood found in a car owned by Emmanuel Micallef, who, for some time, had also been a suspect.

Dr Mifsud insisted that the anonymous phone call the police received implicating his client before the murder took place did not mean anything and could not be considered evidence.

He also said that identification on the basis of one’s eyes was not enough and said that the way the story was put together did not make sense.